I’ve taught in a men’s maximum security prison for some time, read many ‘notes from the field’ essays, and yours is the only one I’ve seen that captures the experience of teaching inside vs. outside, even before Zoom and AI. My incarcerated students have spoiled me for teaching undergrads. Thank you for this beautiful essay. The braided structure was an inspired choice. I plan to share it widely.
PS No one who hasn’t taught in prison is in a position to explain it to you or anyone else.
You can ignore the question I posted on your note. This experience is still relatively new to me but is definitely having a powerful affect on me--like you say, it's so hard to explain it to other people because, frankly, it's hard to say out loud "I wish all my students were like the incarcerated students."
A gripping read! I can’t wait to read part 2. My head is still wrapping itself around your story—it is real, yet feels unreal in the person setting. Were you ever scared?
Lots of rich layers here, but especially appreciate how rapt attention -- and access to education as a privilege -- also raises the stakes for the teacher. I know from friends who also do this kind of work that learning doesn't necessarily continue with this rigor once people get parole and adjust to life outside. Phones, TV, and everything else that distracts us takes over. So there is danger in romanticizing the learning that goes on "inside," since the conditions for those classrooms are artificial.
Nevertheless, there are powerful reminders here that technology really has obscured learning more than it has enabled it. One of the mercies of being outside the classroom myself is not needing to contend with AI as an added layer of complexity in grading. My thoughts are with you and others who must navigate those absurdities.
I would argue that the conditions in prison are not artifical, or no more artificial than any other learning environment. My on-campus classrooms that are filled with technology are by no means natural. I would say both environments are equally a matter of choices. The technology in classrooms, often added thoughtlessly or for the needs of different instructors, are a choice. Many of these choices (as you know) are not made with teaching and learning in mind, as they often spring from things like IT contracts. I love your comment because, in some ways, this is what I’m trying to examine: Why are we accepting our current environment as “natural”? And I think the answer lies in connection with corporate interests and the intense fear in cash strapped higher ed of being labled “change resistant.” Still, an instructor (or instructors) could simply choose to reproduce the environment of the prison classroom outside of the prison? (An amazing irony—free the pedagogy!) Not curriculum wide—which would be impossible—but in specific courses (like an SCIF academic room)?
Yes -- excellent points about the artificiality of college classrooms. I suppose I meant that the scarcity created in prison is artificial. Which is not to say that poverty doesn't come with some constraints outside lockup, but that the spartan conditions inside and the strict rules by which one earns access to that privilege are imposed by those in power. Those strict conditions create a level of rapt attention that I think would be difficult to sustain without the other parameters. But perhaps there is data on whether formerly incarcerated people continue to be lifelong learners and resist the siren song of technology once they've assimilated back into civilian life?
We are always contending with power structures in education. Even homeschoolers have to deal with that. So you're right to question what is natural. I suppose there are points of diminishing returns. I often pondered the paradox of wilderness trails, when I worked on them as a ranger back in the late 90s. A wilderness trail is not wholly wild -- it was constructed for a human purpose (often a business one, given the outfitter trade) then regulated to allow only foot and horse travel, thereby somewhat artificially recreating frontier conditions. No chainsaws, either, though crosscut saws and axes (both manufactured similarly to chainsaws now) were allowed. Even with those ironies, wilderness would not be what it is with mountain bike traffic or the sound of gas engines. So perhaps something like that for pedagogy would be helpful.
Chuck, I know this isn't your main point, but, as a recovering history professor, this horrified me:"Like many universities, my employer is pushing hard on Artificial Intelligence. Get it into your classes and assignments. Get it into your learning outcomes. Syllabus statements. Meetings. No other technology exists." So they want an education to be an exercise. in plagiarizing plagiarism?
Pretty much! What were significant transgressions mere months ago are now “the future of work and career.” Since you’re a historian, I don’t need to tell you about pushing forward a technology with no regard for any of the problems or consequences ahead of time.
Just gobsmacked, even though I shouldn't be. And yes. Still trying to recover from uneducated K12 “leaders” urging everyone to embrace computers for kids in the 90s, because that would be 21st century “learning”, per people who didn't know the meaning of the word. Thanks for great article, and all best to you in your great work.
What a telling comparison... beautiful essay.
I’ve taught in a men’s maximum security prison for some time, read many ‘notes from the field’ essays, and yours is the only one I’ve seen that captures the experience of teaching inside vs. outside, even before Zoom and AI. My incarcerated students have spoiled me for teaching undergrads. Thank you for this beautiful essay. The braided structure was an inspired choice. I plan to share it widely.
PS No one who hasn’t taught in prison is in a position to explain it to you or anyone else.
You can ignore the question I posted on your note. This experience is still relatively new to me but is definitely having a powerful affect on me--like you say, it's so hard to explain it to other people because, frankly, it's hard to say out loud "I wish all my students were like the incarcerated students."
A gripping read! I can’t wait to read part 2. My head is still wrapping itself around your story—it is real, yet feels unreal in the person setting. Were you ever scared?
Wonderful read. Thank you for sharing. I look forward to reading more.
What a great essay. I am eagerly awaiting part two.
Thank you for your work to set minds free, in prison or on a bleak Zoom screen.
So thought provoking. A good education - one that teaches you to think, to analyse, to question - is the path to a rich fulfilled life.
Lots of rich layers here, but especially appreciate how rapt attention -- and access to education as a privilege -- also raises the stakes for the teacher. I know from friends who also do this kind of work that learning doesn't necessarily continue with this rigor once people get parole and adjust to life outside. Phones, TV, and everything else that distracts us takes over. So there is danger in romanticizing the learning that goes on "inside," since the conditions for those classrooms are artificial.
Nevertheless, there are powerful reminders here that technology really has obscured learning more than it has enabled it. One of the mercies of being outside the classroom myself is not needing to contend with AI as an added layer of complexity in grading. My thoughts are with you and others who must navigate those absurdities.
I would argue that the conditions in prison are not artifical, or no more artificial than any other learning environment. My on-campus classrooms that are filled with technology are by no means natural. I would say both environments are equally a matter of choices. The technology in classrooms, often added thoughtlessly or for the needs of different instructors, are a choice. Many of these choices (as you know) are not made with teaching and learning in mind, as they often spring from things like IT contracts. I love your comment because, in some ways, this is what I’m trying to examine: Why are we accepting our current environment as “natural”? And I think the answer lies in connection with corporate interests and the intense fear in cash strapped higher ed of being labled “change resistant.” Still, an instructor (or instructors) could simply choose to reproduce the environment of the prison classroom outside of the prison? (An amazing irony—free the pedagogy!) Not curriculum wide—which would be impossible—but in specific courses (like an SCIF academic room)?
Yes -- excellent points about the artificiality of college classrooms. I suppose I meant that the scarcity created in prison is artificial. Which is not to say that poverty doesn't come with some constraints outside lockup, but that the spartan conditions inside and the strict rules by which one earns access to that privilege are imposed by those in power. Those strict conditions create a level of rapt attention that I think would be difficult to sustain without the other parameters. But perhaps there is data on whether formerly incarcerated people continue to be lifelong learners and resist the siren song of technology once they've assimilated back into civilian life?
We are always contending with power structures in education. Even homeschoolers have to deal with that. So you're right to question what is natural. I suppose there are points of diminishing returns. I often pondered the paradox of wilderness trails, when I worked on them as a ranger back in the late 90s. A wilderness trail is not wholly wild -- it was constructed for a human purpose (often a business one, given the outfitter trade) then regulated to allow only foot and horse travel, thereby somewhat artificially recreating frontier conditions. No chainsaws, either, though crosscut saws and axes (both manufactured similarly to chainsaws now) were allowed. Even with those ironies, wilderness would not be what it is with mountain bike traffic or the sound of gas engines. So perhaps something like that for pedagogy would be helpful.
Chuck, I know this isn't your main point, but, as a recovering history professor, this horrified me:"Like many universities, my employer is pushing hard on Artificial Intelligence. Get it into your classes and assignments. Get it into your learning outcomes. Syllabus statements. Meetings. No other technology exists." So they want an education to be an exercise. in plagiarizing plagiarism?
Pretty much! What were significant transgressions mere months ago are now “the future of work and career.” Since you’re a historian, I don’t need to tell you about pushing forward a technology with no regard for any of the problems or consequences ahead of time.
Just gobsmacked, even though I shouldn't be. And yes. Still trying to recover from uneducated K12 “leaders” urging everyone to embrace computers for kids in the 90s, because that would be 21st century “learning”, per people who didn't know the meaning of the word. Thanks for great article, and all best to you in your great work.